Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

[Chrissy]

Yes, I agree with you completly Orion, you do not fit into the demographic I was refering to. There's also the men that are married, but are gay, and in their circle of friends publicly support Bush, but behind the closed voting curtain, I don't think they'll support him. That was more the group I was refering to, the people who for one reason or another are still in the closet.

Chrissy

[g1asswa1ker]

I think the ban is stupid why make laws that fundimentaly kill ones freedoms. For COL what 2 men or 2 women or a man & a woman or for that matter a group of people do to each other under concent show be no darn business of anyone else but theirs. To impose a morality of someone elses on someone is criminal in my opinion. What would some of you christans feel if a law was past telling you couldn't go to mass. You would be in a uproar thats what you would feel. I'm sorry if I offend any christians out there. I just feel that for the most part your group has been the biggest offender at imposing your moral standers on others. I onl hope that someday you too will feel the type imposing as some of us heathens do from you.

[rklenseth]

Unsupported scattered thoughts:

I don't think prohibiting religious groups to use public property is discriminatory. Does the government recognize a higher being? How does a person define this higher being if he/she is an agnostic, anyway? The Supreme Court does not have power to actually take away a constitutional right. It can only interpret. Granted, this interpretation can have broad effects, but anything that directly violates the First Amendment would still be struck down by the Court. The Constitution is sovereign, and the Supreme Court's interpretation is the only accepted one.

But it is descriminatory. They are prohibiting a group of people to express themselves which in itself is descrimination.

The Supreme Court gave itself the right to interpret the Constitution.

And as I said before, when the Constitution was written, those who were agnostic were rare. At the time the Founding Fathers believed that the only way to protect our rights is to say that it was given to us by a higher power. If they had put that government had given us our rights then that would imply that the government can deny, change, and or regulate those rights.

[Meh]

So Catholics and Bapsists go bugger off...

[Bran-Muffin]

This is funny isnt it this is the OLD pledge,

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation UNDER GOD,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


"At the time the Founding Fathers believed that the only way to protect our rights is to say that it was given to us by a higher power."

they say religion should have nothing to do with the government yet the government was founded by people who wrote the constitution saying the rights were given by a higher power, this country in my opinion hasnt turned out at all like the founding fathers had hoped.

[Meh]

The pledge was create by a flag company 100 years after the founding fathers. God was added even later than that.

[Bran-Muffin]

really? oh well it doesnt amtter any more does it since god was recently taken out. Just still the history of the country was founded on the belief (spelling? im horrible with spelling) of god, now people say god hasnt and shouldnt have anything to do with government.

[g1asswa1ker]

I don't believe in your god so why are you in forcing it on me. What would you say to me if I forced you to say a pledge that had the goddess in it or for that matter what if I were a satanist (their people out there that believe in satan) would you condon my making you pledge to our nation under satan?

[Bran-Muffin]

Im not a religeous freak just so you know but your point is well taken.

[g1asswa1ker]

I didn't think you were. Sorry if I'm a little resentful of religions. I have been burned by them so I get a little heated about them.

[Meh]

really? oh well it doesnt amtter any more does it since god was recently taken out. Just still the history of the country was founded on the belief (spelling? im horrible with spelling) of god, now people say god hasnt and shouldnt have anything to do with government.

What you need to understand is that it was not founded on the belief in God. They did not fight a holy war it was a simple revolt. Anything mentioning god in the doucments is purely decorative as many of them belived in God but they all knew that they belived in different ways.

Let me argue the other side of the case.

Does the contitution garnteee gay rights? No. It is not spelled out. Things that are not spelled out are a matter of interpetation. However no one has ever succesfully argued that their is a prohibition against it. To that end the right of people with gentics disorders is also not guarteed nor is the right of people would like the color red.

Can there be a Gay marrigange ban amendment? Yes. Legally enforcable and we can start putting people into cattle cars today.

Would it be fair? That is a matter of opnion.

Even the conseveratives understand the need for the amendment becuase all the other relgious rethoric is just that. It is not legally enforceable. So if you want the goverment to execute the gays then you need a clear amendment stating that what they do is illegal because the arguement of it being harmful to society has not been proven.

And you can continue on. The bad on slavery right or wrong is just an admendment. Women be able to vote right or wrong is just an amendment.

If you interpet the doucment in the framework of the orginal moral code of the poepole who wrote it Janet Jackson would be in jail now not for any other reason than she was dancing. Just dancing not the rest of it. Dancing is not protected under the contiution and under the moral of the God of the consitution that the founding fathers worhsipped it is illegal. That is why you have to go with what is written not vague references to a moral code that few have clung too in 200 years.

[Meh]

To put it more simply.

The code of laws that is enforced is based on the the will of the people though a legal process. That process alone does not guarantee fairness. You can legally restrict anything if you go though the process. Proclaiming that an interpetation of God wills something has never changed a court case.

The bill of rights is what prevented this nation from becoming just another Iran.

[Bran-Muffin]

*bows to meh* You teach much things older one (how much older? i dont know) anyway thanks that did clear it up and make me understand what was being said alot more. (seriously it did not trying to be rude...)

[g1asswa1ker]

I didn't think you were being rude just holding up your end of what I feel was an interesting topic of discussion

[Bran-Muffin]

it is a very interesting topic indeed, and i am in fact starting to understand more about this sort of thing never really paid much attention to it before.